If you suspect you're a scam target, AARP's fraud helpline is here for you. Learn more.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
718
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

718 Views
Message 931 of 1,248

Carrie Anne, the comment that you posted on this date and time   07-12-2018 03:16 PM  said, “the SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people.” 

 

Please cite the specific statute in the Safe Drinking Water Act which stipulates this.  This is the second time I’m asking you for evidence to support your statement.

 

I’m not trying to disrupt the discussion.  I am simply trying to find out how and where you get your information.  If you can’t provide proof of your statements, I’ll be forced to conclude that you tend to push the limits of the truth for some agenda.

 

I hope you won't consider asking a question to be "outrageous or abusive."  Most normal people would not.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
718
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
716
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

716 Views
Message 932 of 1,248

"... the political profluoridation stance has evolved in to a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues." - Dr. Edward Groth, III, Senior Scientist at Consumer Union, WHO/FAO Expert on Science and Ethics in Food Safety (1991)

 

Fluoridationists are trained to dismiss ethics, deny science, denigrate opposition, disrupt civil dialgoue and distract focus because they don't have evidence that stands up to scrutiny or anything resembling a risk assessement. Consequently, David (apparently recruited to this thread by the American Fluoridation Society (AFS) who realized they were outmatched) is the perfect foil. Since David does not have any scientific or medical credentials to protect, he can be as outrageous and abusive as he wants without bothering about scientific or historical facts and evidence. 

 

  1. Ethics: Using municipal water to mass medicate the population results in worsening the health of millions, plus there is no dose control. Fluoridation contributes to arthritis and other diseases in seniors. 

  2. Science: Fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a significant degree but does result in an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children, a lifelong impact which results in costly dental bills and is associated with increased learning disabilities, bone fractures and kidney disease. 

  3. Opposition: Over a dozen credible organizations oppose fluoridation as do thousands of scientists, dentists, doctors, lawyers and other professionals. Selectively citing Wiki and even worse the extremist 'Rational Wiki' or controversial 'Quack Watch' in an attempt to discredit credentialed opposition is slanderous and desperate. 

  4. Discussion: For three years, about 20 AARP members peacably participated in this thread amassing about 60 posts until the trolls attacked it in an effort to disappear that valid discussion from the web and hide coherent comments and personal testimony from AARP. 

  5. Rhetoric: All the claims about fluoridation being 'safe & effective' are smoke and mirrors. Besides from  being untrue, teeth aren't the issue. Fluoridation trolls are taught that instead of honestly discussing science they can't adequately address, to avoid those discussions by 'reframing' the conversation to an argument that emphasizes dental endorsements rather than evidence. In this way, their logical fallacies are more effective in influencing the uneducated who have been primed by toothpaste advertisements to believe the medical myth. It's a political ploy. 

  

SUMMARY:

Fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that benefits corporate financial health by forcing contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of the negative impact on individual consumers or on the environment.  

As an advocate for seniors, AARP should oppose fluoridation policy. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
716
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
695
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

695 Views
Message 933 of 1,248

David,

Clearly we do not have the same definition of "evidence based" or "reputable."  

 

You are still going down the path of "endorsements" rather than "evidence."  

 

Consider:  The organizations you list do not determine the safety or efficacy or dosage of any substance.  Not one.   Please provide the scientific position paper on fluoride ingestion and/or fluoride supplements of any of the100 organizations you rely on.  But you won't because most don't have scientificly backed position statements, because the scientific evidence is lacking for efficacy, safety, dosage. 

 

In Contrast: Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.   And you have not considered the www.IAOMT.org position paper on fluoride/fluoridation.  Read it and compare with any other organization's position paper.

 

And you failed to comment on the evidence I presented.   What caused the decline in dental caries prior to fluoridation?  

 

Until that question is answered, all studies on fluoridation have failed to control for a serious confounding factor and are not significant.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
695
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
717
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

717 Views
Message 934 of 1,248

Thank you, Dr. Bill.  I like to look at the evidence too.  That's why my comments, in looking at your motivation are evidence based.

 

Let's look at the evidence.  There is not one reputable health care or scientific organization in the world which opposes communitiy water fluoridation.  Not One. 

 

In arguing that fact, you cited several countries and holistic dentists; which as the evidence shows are, in the first case, are not scientific organizations, and in the second, not reputable.  I've shown you the evidence . . you've either denied it or ignored it.

 

More evidence:  There are over 100 reputable health care and other scientific organizations which have gone out of their way to endorse community water fluoridation.  These include the World Health Organization, the United States CDC, the American Cancer Society, the Mayo Clinic . . . the 8000 character limit prevents me from listing them all.

 

These reputable health care & scientific organizations represent hundreds of thousands of experts in their fields.

 

Now, let's look at you.  In the past few exchanges between you and I, you have shown that you are either unable to comprehend what is written (you accused me of citing Wikipedia as an example of a reputable scientific organization -  when I did not), or you don't take the time to read something before you comment on it, or you just say things and you don't care if they are true or not.

 

So, you are telling me, that of the over 4000 studies which have been devoted to fluoride, somehow you have gleaned the "truth" of the matter of optimally fluoridated water when it has somehow escaped the hundreds of thousands of experts who stand by, and endorse the practice of water fluoridation.  Really?  When you can't even seem to get through two comments, which would have taken under 5 minutes to read, before coming to the wrong conclusion?  Really?

 

Let's look at some more evidence.  Carrie Anne, one of your commrades, has said the Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the addition of anything to water which is intended to treat people.  That was false.  I asked her to show me the evidence and cite the statute.  She was unable to do so.  Dr. Sauerheber has said that according to the FDA, pregnant women are prevented from ingesting fluoride compounds.  I asked him for any evidence of this, because . . we like to base our conclusions on the evidence, and he provided none.  On the other hand, I provided a label from a bottle of FDA regulated fluoridated water.  No such warning appears on any fluoridated water bottles . . which is, again, regulated by the FDA.   And these are only two of very many examples which I have encountered in these recent exchanges.

 

What I'm getting at is, when an objective reader looks very closely at what you and your fringe, extreme minority organization are saying, much of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  

 

So, since I like to draw my conclusions based on the evidence, it is very unlikely that someone who can't even get through 5 minutes of reading before reaching the wrong conclusion has more credibility than hundreds of thousands of experts who stand by and endorse community water fluoridation.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
717
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
736
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

736 Views
Message 935 of 1,248

David,

 

Excellent, you are using the term "evidence based."   So much better than "trust based" or "tradition based."  Evidence based health care may reject tradition, such as fluoridation.

 

"define evidence based - Google Search

  1. denoting disciplines of health care that proceed empirically with regard to the patient and reject more traditional protocols."
     
    Lets look at empirical evidence from the US Centers for Disease Control in their graph below.  The early version of this graph was used in my dental school as evidence fluoridation was working.  The graph has been updated to add additional years. 
     
    Over time, the percentage of the population on fluoridated water increased and the rate of dental caries decreased.  Wow.  I was impressed.  Caution: just because two events happen, does not mean they are related.  Consider the impossibility that a 17% of the entire population increase in fluoridation would cause a huge, 70% decrease in caries. . . for the entire population?  Not reasonable.  The fluoridation would have had to target only those high risk individuals, not everyone. Possible if fluoridated water were sent directly to high risk individuals.  Not possible if random cities were fluoridated. . . and that is what happened.  
     

 

CDC graph Caries F-page0001 II.jpgAnd now lets look at empirical evidence by Colquhoun over a longer time frame.  Indeed, caries have decreased over time significantly.  In fact, most caries declined PRIOR to significant implementation of fluoridation in public water.  The decline in caries remained relatively constant regardless of fluoridation.  So many important questions.

 

What caused the decline in caries prior to fluoridation and did that cause continue after fluoridation started?   In other words, there was a powerful huge crushing caries reduction unknown which has never been included in any caries research.  Until that huge factor is known and controlled for, any other research is suspect.  

page0001.jpgDavid, the CDC is made up of well meaning people, but sometimes they are wrong.  Showing one graph without a larger time frame, has lead to erroneous conclusions.  Even empirical evidence needs to be used with caution and not cherry picked.  Simply believing in tradition or the empirical evidence of those with vested interests may not be the full picture.

 

For the CDC to now back up is extremely difficult.  Instead they hunker down and keep saying the same thing over and over.

 

Add that evidence to the NHANES, FDA, HHS and primary empirical evidence and we realize the evidence of efficacy is mixed and of lower quality. 

 

Before fluoridation can be introduced, the World Health Organization advises to determine how much fluoride individuals in the community are already getting.  Only if the dosage is inadequate, then supplement the inadequacy.  Well, we don't know an adequate dosage.  And we don't know how much people are already getting in the USA.  Except that 60% of adolescents are show a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.

 

Good job David looking at empirical evidence.  Now your turn to post empirical evidence.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
736
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
784
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

784 Views
Message 936 of 1,248

Carrie Anne says, "

"BTW: On the topic of 'holistic dentistry' and cherry picking, the Wikipedia entry David cited lays out the following basic principles of the holistic approach to dentistry: 

  • Proper nutrition for the prevention and reversal of degenerative dental disease
  • Avoidance and elimination of toxins from dental materials
  • Prevention and treatment of dental malocclusion (bite problems=physical imbalance)
  • Prevention and treatment of gum disease at its biological basis"

Response:  Yes, Carrie Anne, these are the PRINCIPLES of holistic dentistry.  Principles are opinions and approaches.  More relevant to empiricism and science, the article also says,

 

"Many practices and opinions among alternative dentists are criticized as not being evidence-based by the mainstream dental community and skeptics of alternative medicine in general."

 

A principle, or an approach, which is not evidence based is worthless.  I didn't cherry-pick.  I didn't cite holistic dentistry "principles" because they are irrelevant.  The principle behind Crystal Healing is to free the flow the energy throughout the body and allow healing.  So what.  It doesn't work.

 

On the other hand, this would be an example of an evidence based statement from the Wiki/Holistic Dentistry article:  " . .  fees charged by such practitioners are generally several times higher than those of mainstream dentists."

 

Evidence based statements are relevant.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
784
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
679
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

679 Views
Message 937 of 1,248

Carrie Anne says, "

"BTW: On the topic of 'holistic dentistry' and cherry picking, the Wikipedia entry David cited lays out the following basic principles of the holistic approach to dentistry: 

  • Proper nutrition for the prevention and reversal of degenerative dental disease
  • Avoidance and elimination of toxins from dental materials
  • Prevention and treatment of dental malocclusion (bite problems=physical imbalance)
  • Prevention and treatment of gum disease at its biological basis"

Response:  Yes, Carrie Anne, these are the PRINCIPLES of holistic dentistry.  Principles are opinions and approaches.  More relevant to empiricism and science, the article also says,

 

"Many practices and opinions among alternative dentists are criticized as not being evidence-based by the mainstream dental community and skeptics of alternative medicine in general."

 

A principle, or an approach, which is not evidence based is worthless.  I didn't cherry-pick.  I didn't cite holistic dentistry "principles" because they are irrelevant.  The principle behind Crystal Healing is to free the flow the energy throughout the body and allow healing.  So what.  It doesn't work.

 

What is relevant, and evidenced based, about Holistic Dentistry is this:  " . .  fees charged by such practitioners are generally several times higher than those of mainstream dentists."  

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
679
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
808
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

808 Views
Message 938 of 1,248

"... evidence has shown that these early researchers had it backwards. It now appears that fluoride acts only on teeth that have already erupted... there are more direct ways of bringing fluoride into contact with tooth enamel. The most common of these is the use of fluoride toothpastes."  - Lahey Clinic website (similar statement on many other medical websites) 

 

“…. for decades we have believed that fluoride in small doses has no adverse effects on health. …. But more and more scientists are seriously questioning the benefits of fluoride even in small amounts.” -  UNICEF in Waterfront, Issue 13, December 1999

 

However, despite significant evidence of harm and lack of proof of efficicacy validated by credible objections from reputable organizations and experts who include Dr. Bill Osmunson, Dr. Richard Sauerheber & chemist Susan Kanen on this forum thread, the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates as well as apparently affording some with the emotional satisfaction of engaging in online harrassment. 

 

Nevertheless, this isn't really about teeth. The issue is fluoride consumption is medically contraindicated for many with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and renal disease as well as being ill advised for vulnerable populations who include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies & young children, the elderly and any in fragile health.

 

Consequently, fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that causes misery in millions of consumers who include senior citizens. 

 

 “… subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds … include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems.…” - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 1993)

 

Family.jpg

 

BTW: On the topic of 'holistic dentistry' and cherry picking, the Wikipedia entry David cited includes the purpose of holistic dentistry as adding to dental school curriculum with  'additional options for treatment with a primary goal to teach and to learn' following the basic principles of the holistic approach to dentistry: 

  • Proper nutrition for the prevention and reversal of degenerative dental disease
  • Avoidance and elimination of toxins from dental materials
  • Prevention and treatment of dental malocclusion (bite problems=physical imbalance)
  • Prevention and treatment of gum disease at its biological basis

That some Wiki author inserted an opinion that fees might be higher and disparages the field doesn't make a healthy diet, avoidance of poison and searching for root cause remedies to gum disease rather than total reliance on treatment of the symptoms an invalid approach to dentistry - it just makes it more holistic.  

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
808
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
796
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

796 Views
Message 939 of 1,248

Bill O,  You say: 

 

“I asked you for the names of  reputable scientific organizations you accept.

 

You provided Wikipedia.  Wikipedia never crossed my mind as either scientific or reputable.”

 

And, "Any other organizations you accept as "scientifically reputable?"    Are there any other scientists in the world, besides you, who accept Wikipedia as scientifically reputable?“

 

Response:  Thank you, Bill, for proving my point that you cherry-pick information and take things out of context.  I did not cite Wikipedia as a reputable scientific organization.  I used Wikipedia and Quackwatch to expose problems with your so-called reputable organization, Holistic Dentistry, which uses pseudo-scientific approaches which have never been scientifically proven, and indeed can be harmful to patients.  And they over-charge their clients. 

 

I cited the Mayo Clinic, the American Cancer Society, and the World Health Organization as reputable scientific organizations . . all of which support community water fluoridation.

 

(My comment for your review:  “ . .  if I don’t see them listed on Quackwatch that’s a plus.  For example, you won’t see the Mayo Clinic on Quackwatch.  The Mayo Clinic is a reputable organization . . and they endorse water fluoridation.

 

The American Cancer Society isn’t listed on Quackwatch.  That is also a reputable organization, which, by the way, also endorses water fluoridation.   

 

How about the World Health Organization.  I can’t find an article about the WHO on Quackwatch . . and guess what.  They also endorse community water fluoridation.”)

07-25-2018 11:19 AM  Please, feel free to review the comment.

 

Do you seriously believe that any reader of this thread is unable to go back and review comments for themselves?  Wow!

 

By the way, How much did Mercola fund the Fluoride Action Network while you were the director of that fringe organization?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
796
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
645
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

645 Views
Message 940 of 1,248

Bill O, you say,

 

"I asked you for the names of  reputable scientific organizations you accept.

 You provided Wikipedia.  Wikipedia never crossed my mind as either scientific or reputable.  . . .

. . . Any other organizations you accept as "scientifically reputable?"    Are there any other scientists in the world, besides you, who accept Wikipedia as scientifically reputable?"

 

Response:  Thank you, Bill, for proving my point that you cherry-pick informaton, and take things out of context.  You asked me which organizations I consider reputable.  I cited the World Health Organization, the Mayo Clinic, and the American Cancer Society.  

 

(My quotes from my response:  " The Mayo Clinic is a reputable organization . . and they endorse water fluoridation. . . . . The American Cancer Society isn’t listed on Quackwatch.  That is also a reputable organization, which, by the way, also endorses water fluoridation.   . . . . . How about the World Health Organization.  I can’t find an article about the WHO on Quackwatch . . and guess what.  They also endorse community water fluoridation.")  07-25-2018 11:19 AM

 

I used the Wikipedia article to expose the problems with your so-called reputable organization which is opposed to water fluoridation.  According to Wikipedia and Quackwatch, Homeopathic Dentists, who are also opposed to Water Fluoridation use pseudo-scientific approaches which have never been scientifically proven, and indeed can be harmful to health, and they over charge their gullable clients.  I did not cite Wikipedia as a scientifically reputable organization, and anyone who can read knows that.

 

Do you seriously believe that any objective reader of this thread is unable to go back and look at previous comments?  Wow!

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
645
Views